Weight-Loss James Krieger's Review of Good Calories, Bad Calories

[Steve]

I will probably make this a sticky once it's all said and done... but James is a very thorough researcher. Through my conversations with him, he's proven to be what I consider one of the top minds in the field. In this series of blog posts, he critiques specifically, chapter-by-chapter, Taubes well-known book; Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Even if you haven't read the book it's worth the read as he presents what will be eye-opening research for some of you.

Enjoy!

 

[Harold14370]

Thanks for posting that, Steve. I had heard of GCBC but was not aware of how bad the science in the book really is. Gym memberships as a measure of how much people are exercising...pathetic.

However there is one thing in the review I don't agree with:

In fact, people in poverty are more likely to consume energy-dense foods, because energy-dense foods are much lower in price.

Here, Krieger appears to be perpetuating the idea that poor people are obese because they have to buy calorie dense food just to afford enough calories to survive. That's an obvious fallacy because if that were the case they would not be obese. Put another way, if they can afford enough calories to get obese, they could take some of their high-cal food budget, and keep it in their pocket. Then they might be malnourished, but not obese. Or they could spend that money on fruits and vegetables.

 

[JamesKrieger]

Here, Krieger appears to be perpetuating the idea that poor people are obese because they have to buy calorie dense food just to afford enough calories to survive.

No, poor people buy calorie dense food simply because it's cheaper and more convenient (a lack of education regarding healthy diets probably plays a role as well). Foods that are high in fat and/or high in refined carbohydrate are dramatically cheaper, and when one consumes these foods, it is very easy to passively overconsume without even noticing it.

Put another way, if they can afford enough calories to get obese,
they could take some of their high-cal food budget, and keep it in their pocket.

But it's not like they're thinking about how many calories they're eating. Again, we're talking about passive overconsumption here.

The research studies show this, including the ones I referenced in the post. They show that the poor eat energy dense foods. They also show that they underreport their energy intakes.

 

[Harold14370]

No, poor people buy calorie dense food simply because it's cheaper and more convenient.

If you are going to use calorie density as a measure of cheapness, you are right. Empty calories are a waste of money, though. Why not have a chart that shows price per pound, or price per vitamin, or something? Nobody should be buying their food by the calorie. Especially somebody who is obese.

(a lack of education regarding healthy diets probably plays a role as well).

This I can agree with.

Actually, your main point is correct. Poor people eat lots of calorie dense food, and that refutes an argument in the book Good Calories Bad Calories. It's just that I hate it when I hear people say that poor people are doomed to obesity because they can't afford good food. So, when that fallacy is presented (as I think it was in the article you linked to) I think it should be challenged.

 

[Steve]

First... James, it's a pleasure to see you here.

If you are going to use calorie density as a measure of cheapness, you are right. Empty calories are a waste of money, though. Why not have a chart that shows price per pound, or price per vitamin, or something? Nobody should be buying their food by the calorie. Especially somebody who is obese.

Harold, maybe I'm not understanding your line of reasoning... so bare with me. With passive over consumption, folks aren't consciously deciding anything about their food selection other than what's easy, tasty, accessible and cheap. Their environment's are doing that for them.

It's their settling point, if you will.

Anecdotally, I live just outside of a very poor urban area. Each street corner has a small Ma & Pa convenient store that sells mostly processed crap. There are no grocery stores in the town itself. There are a few expensive restaurants coupled with every fast food joint we have here in the north east.

People over-consume calories here primarily due to the accessibility and feasibility of purchasing energy-dense food. It's not a consciously made decision to do so, hence the passivity. It's simply the nature of poor neighborhoods.

For those in this population who don't care about health and weight, the environment around them is much more likely to lead to over-consumption than anything else. Which isn't to say that those in this population who do want to change, can't. There are ways of eating better on a tight budget, of course.

Here's another piece of anecdote from my experience...

My gym is a bit different than others in the area in that there are no general memberships. Everyone customer/client works either directly with a trainer or in a small-group setting. Obviously this sort of service will cost more than a general membership to a big box gym. Or even more than hiring a low rate personal trainer from one of these big box gyms.

Given this, my partner and I have set out to educate "the masses" in our area on why the vast majority of the fitness industry and even the diet industry is working off of flawed models. We myth bust. We educate. And we do it for free, with the hope that a percentage of those in attendance will see the light and sign up to work with us.

Within the past year, we've started taking this model into the aforementioned poor neighborhood. Of course we're not looking for clientele from this demographic. We're simply hoping to do our part in the education process.

Here's the kicker...

I've found that more often than not, folks in this demographic... especially women.... have no desire to lose fat. They like it. The men around them like it. It's a part of their culture if you'd like to call it that. In almost every "session" we've put on... at least one person has openly spoken up about how they don't want to lose weight. Or we get inquiries about how one can become healthier yet lose no weight - typically this is coming from an overweight person.

Not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand... but interesting nonetheless.

It's just that I hate it when I hear people say that poor people are doomed to obesity because they can't afford good food.

And I don't think that's what James is saying AT ALL. He's simply saying that poor people, based on the available research and anecdotal evidence, are probably more likely to over-consume calories than under-consume, which directly opposes the crap that Taubes was slinging.

Of course if we can interrupt the passive, unconscious decision making that leads to over consumption... we can control calories in this population. If you find those who truly want to change and are receptive to nutritional education of the basics... of course, even in the face of poverty, they can lose their excess weight. James will agree, I'm sure.

So, when that fallacy is presented (as I think it was in the article you linked to) I think it should be challenged.

Ohhh, sorry. I'm responding as I read along. I was hastily assuming you felt James was claiming it's impossible for poor folks to eat better/controlled. If it's the article, then disregard my previous commentary.

 

[Harold14370]

Ohhh, sorry. I'm responding as I read along. I was hastily assuming you felt James was claiming it's impossible for poor folks to eat better/controlled. If it's the article, then disregard my previous commentary.

No, James didn't say that. However he did reproduce a chart that showed the cost per calorie of various foods, which sort of did imply or endorse the idea that cheap food = low cost per calorie. That's what set me off. I know that where I shop, you can get stuff like beans, bananas, bread, frozen vegetables, for not a whole lot of money. It might not stack up to sugar for calories per dollar, but beats the heck out of it for nutrition per dollar. Eggs are cheap. A serving of toasted oat cereal with skim milk, say for example, would cost pennies. You wouldn't break the bank making yourself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

You do make a good point, that there aren't too many grocery stores in the slums. I do have to wonder where people buy their food in those kinds of places. Surely they can't be living on junk food from convenience stores, can they? I assumed they'd just have to go across town to do their grocery shopping.

 

[Jeanette401]

You do make a good point, that there aren't too many grocery stores in the slums. I do have to wonder where people buy their food in those kinds of places. Surely they can't be living on junk food from convenience stores, can they? I assumed they'd just have to go across town to do their grocery shopping.

In similar circumstances (student ghetto & low income) my brother just went to the corner 7-11 for all of his food. :/ You can get enough calories (although not necessarily nutrition) by buying the junk there even at low cost.

Lower income doesn't = doomed to obesity, but it also doesn't = guaranteed lower calories either. Ramen is cheap! 380 calories for 10 to 20 cents - and you can find it in a lot of corner gas stations.

 

[Steve]

No, James didn't say that. However he did reproduce a chart that showed the cost per calorie of various foods, which sort of did imply or endorse the idea that cheap food = low cost per calorie. That's what set me off. I know that where I shop, you can get stuff like beans, bananas, bread, frozen vegetables, for not a whole lot of money. It might not stack up to sugar for calories per dollar, but beats the heck out of it for nutrition per dollar. Eggs are cheap. A serving of toasted oat cereal with skim milk, say for example, would cost pennies. You wouldn't break the bank making yourself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Yup... I agree. You can make healthier choices that are more nutrient-dense and calorie-sparse while operating on a fixed or cheap budget. It's getting folks to do it that is the issue.

And really... from my perspective, it doesn't matter how applicable the data James presented is, even though I'd argue most of it is. It's just one nugget that's more reliable in my opinion than the crap Taubes espouses about poor people not having the income to eat enough calories to be fat and also being the hardest workers so they expend the most energy.

It simply doesn't match up to anecdote.

Take a drive through any poor neighborhood and you'll see many, many folks on welfare, not working, and eating like absolute crap. If I'm going to take beef with something someone says expertly... it's going to be the guy who paints pictures to sell books to a terribly desperate group of people. That just chaps my ass.

You do make a good point, that there aren't too many grocery stores in the slums. I do have to wonder where people buy their food in those kinds of places. Surely they can't be living on junk food from convenience stores, can they? I assumed they'd just have to go across town to do their grocery shopping.

I actually have a couple of friends who live in the aforementioned town I spoke of. It's a biased selection though since they actually care about their health/fitness. And they do just that... they take the bus to the nearest grocery store.

Many though, based on my dealings, do exactly what you said... they live on crap. It'll be 1 or 2 meals from the value menus of fast food joints and they eat crap in between. It's certainly not universal, I'm sure. But it seems to be the majority.

I think you're dealing with a whole different mindset. The victim-mentality... where many of these folks believe there's not a thing they can do to change their circumstances, so why try?

It's tough.

But this sort of diverts from the point of this thread - that being that Taubes is an intellectually dishonest windbag. Interesting convo, nonetheless.

 

[Harold14370]

But this sort of diverts from the point of this thread - that being that Taubes is an intellectually dishonest windbag. Interesting convo, nonetheless.

Yes, you're right. It was a bit of a side track. Krieger's points about the book were spot on.

 

[5KFreak]

This thread caught my attention! Another subject that I am pretty passionate about. I just went an took a gander at my local Kroger (gorcery store) advertisement. Below are items that are ON SALE and it goes to show that unhealthy crap is so much damn cheaper and therefore much easier for poverty ridden people to get fatter and fatter! Also like Steve mentions by local Burger King has 4 burgers for $4.

1 box of Homestyle Bakes Cheesy Hamburger - $2.50 with the sale and a coupon (this looks to feed about 5 people)
1lb of full fat hamburger (this is to add to the above dish) - $1.29lb this is the store brand in a tube.

So above we have a meal for about five people (add some butter and milk most likely) for $3.79

Or you can get a large party pizza that will feed maybe 3 kids for $.85

1lb of chicken (about 3 breast) - $1.88
1lb of aspargus (roughly half a bunch) - $3.00
Head of lettuce - $1.00
1lb of tomatoes - $1.99

So above to feed maybe three people healthy items it will cost $7.87

When all you have is $10 in your pocket and a family to feed you will go with the crap! Plain and simple.

 

[Harold14370]

1lb of chicken (about 3 breast) - $1.88
1lb of aspargus (roughly half a bunch) - $3.00
Head of lettuce - $1.00
1lb of tomatoes - $1.99

So above to feed maybe three people healthy items it will cost $7.87

When all you have is $10 in your pocket and a family to feed you will go with the crap! Plain and simple.

Notice that the vast majority of the cost of your "healthy" meal is fresh vegetables, out of season. Even so, feeding 3 people for $7.87 is not so bad. It's a lot less than I usually spend at a fast food place. But we can do a lot better by shopping smarter. Instead of the veggies you listed, let's give everybody a cup of canned peas and carrots. At 5 cans for $4.00 that works out to about $1.28 for our family of 3. Add a 6 ounce potato apiece at $2.99 for a 10 pound bag and that's another 11 cents apiece, or say 35 cents, and a cup of skim milk each at about 22 cents each, so we are now up to 1.88+1.28+0.35+0.66=4.17. Quite a bit different, and we even have something to drink.

 

[5KFreak]

Harold,
From reading a few of your posts, it seems to me that you just like to argue for the heck of it. That's okay though =) I am just not sure what the point of your last post was considering that I was just making a point in which crap is cheaper than healthy and why it's possible for poor folks to be obese. I would even go as far as saying a hell of a lot of poor people are overweight.

I am confused though why when you mentioned my healthy meal, you put the word healthy in quotes. As to say it was my so called healthy meal, and then you say that the majority of my costs were in veggies and I am a bit confused because ummm that was my point of the post.

My point was not to see who can find the best sale on healthy items. You even prove my point in your proposed argument. Your chicken, canned veggie, and milk meal for three still costs more that the box of processed crap cheesy burger bake that feeds four, and maybe even with a little leftovers!

 

[5KFreak]

Oh and just another quick point about it, have you ever seen what one is able to get for free on the WIC program? I can promise you it isn't lean fish and chicken.

 

[Harold14370]

The point I was making relates to obesity. Sure, you can get more calories by eating sugar and lard. Nobody who is obese needs to do that.

It is still a logical fallacy to say that poor people cannot afford enough calories, therefore they buy calorie dense food, therefore they consume far too many calories. If they do that, it's a problem with education, not money.

This is from the WIC fact sheet on the USDA site:

What foods does WIC provide? WIC provides infant formula, infant and adult cereal and juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, and dried beans or peas. Some WIC participants also receive canned tuna and carrots.

That looks pretty healthful to me.

 

[JamesKrieger]

It is still a logical fallacy to say that poor people cannot afford enough calories, therefore they buy calorie dense food, therefore they consume far too many calories..

But that is a strawman. Nobody is saying that.

It's not that poor people "can't afford enough calories." It's that the cheapest foods have the highest energy density (i.e., a lot of calories packed into a very small package). Thus, you get passive overconsumption among poor people because they're buying the most energy dense foods.

 

[shygemini]

It is actually possible to buy healthy food on a budget...the problem is that people often do not have the time, desire, or knowledge (about cooking and healthy foods) to menu plan and figure out proper portion sizes. And in that way it is just easier to buy the prepackaged goods that require the least amount of time in the kitchen and least amount of knowledge about cooking.

 

[Harold14370]

But that is a strawman. Nobody is saying that.

I don't think it's a strawman. Here is what the Pubmed article said.

As incomes drop, energy-dense foods that are nutrient poor become the best way to provide daily calories at an affordable cost.

It's not that poor people "can't afford enough calories." It's that the cheapest foods have the highest energy density (i.e., a lot of calories packed into a very small package). Thus, you get passive overconsumption among poor people because they're buying the most energy dense foods.

Look how you are defining cheap: high energy density. That only make sense for someone who is starving, not someone who is obese. That kind of food is very expensive in terms of the cost per nutrients that an obese person needs. I could also make a chart of cost per pound, or how about cost per cubic inch. I think that would show other kinds of food being cheaper.
Passive overconsumption? That is a problem for all of us.

 

[JamesKrieger]

Look how you are defining cheap: high energy density.

But that's not how I'm defining cheap. All I'm saying is there's a correlation between price and energy density.

That only make sense for someone who is starving, not someone who is obese.

It makes perfect sense on how poor people can be obese. Remember, Taubes was making the insinuation that poor people can't afford enough calories to become obese; his implication is that there's something else going on other than energy balance. However, the relationship between food cost and energy density demonstrates that he is not correct.

The fact is, one could consume a 3000 calorie/day unhealthy diet for much less money than a 2000 calorie/day healthy diet.

That kind of food is very expensive in terms of the cost per nutrients that an obese person needs.

The data doesn't support that. This has been examined and in fact, a diet high in micronutrients costs more.

I could also make a chart of cost per pound, or how about cost per cubic inch. I think that would show other kinds of food being cheaper.

How would that be relevant?

Passive overconsumption? That is a problem for all of us.

Of course it is. The only point being made is that poor people certainly do eat high energy diets, and that being poor doesn't prevent this.

 

[Harold14370]

But that's not how I'm defining cheap. All I'm saying is there's a correlation between price and energy density.

How is that relevant?

It makes perfect sense on how poor people can be obese. Remember, Taubes was making the insinuation that poor people can't afford enough calories to become obese; his implication is that there's something else going on other than energy balance. However, the relationship between food cost and energy density demonstrates that he is not correct.

Agreed.

The fact is, one could consume a 3000 calorie/day unhealthy diet for much less money than a 2000 calorie/day healthy diet.

For an obese person, would a 3000 calorie unhealthy diet be better or worse than 2000 calories of the same food? Which would cost more? I think 2000 calories of junk food is healthier and cheaper than 3000 calories of junk food.

The data doesn't support that. This has been examined and in fact, a diet high in micronutrients costs more.

I find it hard to believe that junk food is a more efficient way to get your micronutrients than vegetables. Take soda pop for instance. It's pretty cheap using your dollars per calorie standard. It has no micronutrients. The cost per micronutrient is infinite.

How would that be relevant?

Well buying food based on cost per cubic inch would be better than cost per calorie because the volume of food fills your stomach. That's something you need more than the calories, if you are obese.

 

[JamesKrieger]

For an obese person, would a 3000 calorie unhealthy diet be better or worse than 2000 calories of the same food? Which would cost more? I think 2000 calories of junk food is healthier and cheaper than 3000 calories of junk food.

But poor people don't count their calories. Combine that with eating energy dense foods, they will eat the 3000 calories without thinking about it. I would agree with your previous statement that education plays a role here as well, and the scientific data supports that.

I find it hard to believe that junk food is a more efficient way to get your micronutrients than vegetables. Take soda pop for instance. It's pretty cheap using your dollars per calorie standard. It has no micronutrients. The cost per micronutrient is infinite.

But poor people aren't concerned with their micronutrient intake. They're not even thinking about it.